Talk:Alpha and Beta Quadrant species
DS9 Alien Contest Which alien was created as the winner of the DS9 Create an Alien contest, advertised on action figure packages?--StAkAr Karnak 03:30, 25 Nov 2005 (UTC) The Rasiinians. Jaf 03:32, 25 Nov 2005 (UTC)Jaf Gvsualan's edit Gvsualan (Talk | contribs) m (4,367 bytes) (Undo revision 901050 by Golden Monkey (talk) - Nog was in starfleet, so was Worf, does that make their species members too?)-said while reverting my addition of Pardshay's species Um, where did I say Pardshay's race were members of the Federation? This isn't for members of the Federation, this is for species from the Alpha and Beta Quadrant, as it says right up there at the top of the page. And by the time of VI, the Delta and Gamma Quadrants had not yet been visited, meaning someone in Starfleet at that time would by default be from the Alpha or Beta Quadrant. So since I don't understand the problem with my edit, I'm restoring what I put. --Golden Monkey 14:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC) Why was Ayt removed? I'd seen the Ayt on this list before, but now it's been removed. Was there a good reason for this? TrekkieCub314 (talk) 18:09, September 19, 2015 (UTC) On the inclusion of Human sub-types in the list I have consistently tried to put in the various distinct Human sub-groups which are present in Star Trek into this article, but this has been resisted by @User:Gvsualan. I would like to set out why they should be in this list. Firstly, the parent article for this article is "Species and cultures" (or rather it was until it was very recently changed, due to this dispute), which deals with the obvious issue, that not all of these listed are in fact separate species, but some are different cultures of the same species. The most obvious and glaring example of this is the Vulcans and the Romulans, who of course are the same species. Now if you wish to have a strict interpretation of only allowing distinct species on this list, then either one of these groups would have to be deleted or they would have to be merged. And I don't think anyone wants to do that, because by the logic of the Star Trek universe, they are considered separate groups with very distinct characteristics and histories. The same is true for the different types of Humans that are encountered throughout the series. Oh and that's not all, there are several more examples of this phenomena: the Ba'ku and the Son'a are the same species, as are the Andorians and the Aenar, the Eminians and Vendikans, the Morgs and Eymorgs, and the Kriosians and the Valtese. All are the specifically said to be the same species, yet we treat them as different groups with distinct characteristics (as we should). I would submit that if these are valid for the list, then so are all the Human sub-groups, who are sometimes just as different politically or even genetically as the above examples. Memory Alpha has articles on the following Human sub-groups: Amerind natives, Augments, Bringloidi, Chakotay's tribe, Dorvan V natives, Genome colony natives, Maquis, Mariposa colony natives, Novans, Tau Cygna V inhabitants, Terratins, Turkana IV inhabitants. These are all cultures which either politically separated from the Federation/Earth, or evolved separately for a long period of time from the normal Humans. I see no logical reason why they should not be on the list. --HibernianPDM (talk) 02:17, April 4, 2018 (UTC) : The removal of an obsolete page was not "due to this dispute", it was the conclusion to the apparent splitting of the topics to their own pages "species and cultures" which are two different things. Second, Category:Species is not equal to Category:Groups, you are adding groups to a species page. If there are other "Groups" on said page, they shouldn't be there, however the case of Romulans and Aenar doesn't apply, because they have been our right called their own species or subspecies. You're taking the page backwards by readding groups, instead of updating it by removing relics. --Alan (talk) 02:39, April 4, 2018 (UTC) Hmm, it was also inconvenient to your argument that these lists should only contain species, rather than species and cultures when I pointed it out to you. I agree that in theory, "Species" and "Cultures" are separate things, but the Star Trek universe is highly ambiguous about this. However, there is no article about "cultures", there is only an article about "Culture", which is extremely general and doesn't deal with these issues. If there were two separate list articles called Alpha and Beta Quadrant species and "Alpha and Beta Quadrant cultures", then that would be one way to solve it, but the other article simply doesn't exist at the moment (so when you delete entries from this list it can be impossible for a user to find out about these sub-groups). You then bring up that there are separate categories for "Species" and for "Groups", but again, a category is not the same thing as an article. And the category "Groups" is very broad and includes things as diverse as a Federation Grand Jury, Multiple births and Firing squads! This is clearly not a suitable list of intelligent sub-species or political groups. The solution therefore is either to create a separate list article which does include the Son'a, etc. Or to rename this article to "Alpha and Beta Quadrant species and cultures". In which case we can have a complete list and address all the ambiguities, by listing sub-species and separate cultures under the heading of their parent species (as I suggested with the Humans, and a few others). And you still don't fundamentally seem to have acknowledged that the Romulans are technically just a political splinter group of Vulcans. Any firm comment on that? Or why they should be treated differently from the other cases? I mean, some of the human sub-groups are more different from each other than the Vulcans and Romulans are. The Terratins and the Augments are very significantly genetically different from "standard" humans. Are you really claiming that they are more similar to each other than Vulcans and Romulans are? Come on. Since the definition of what is a species, what is a subspecies, and what is a culture is ambiguous in Star Trek canon (where they are basically all combined), I think Memory Alpha should simply treat them all as the same (with provisos). We should have a combined article which lists all speices, subspecies, and cultures. That would explain the totality of the canon to readers and not leave out any information. --HibernianPDM (talk) 01:26, April 5, 2018 (UTC) : If you have a problem with the current state of the culture article, then start by expanding that, which is already many times the nothing that the old "Species and cultures" article had on the subject. --Alan (talk) 02:42, April 5, 2018 (UTC) So you're not even going to address any of the points I've made? --HibernianPDM (talk) 03:21, April 5, 2018 (UTC) ::I must agree with Alan. I would add that episodes like clearly indicate there are enough differences between Vulcans and Romulans to (at that point) consider them separate species(separate enough that Crusher could not simply treat a Romulan like a Vulcan). 31dot (talk) 08:00, April 5, 2018 (UTC) : I wouldn't start defining things until the definitions are established. So addressing your oversized block text before that that key point is established is a rather moot point. --Alan (talk) 11:51, April 5, 2018 (UTC) :::See MA:CS#Human groups. --LauraCC (talk) 16:52, April 5, 2018 (UTC) @31dot, yes certainly I don't doubt that there are physiological differences between Romulans and Vulcans, but we're also told clearly that they were one species before the Romulans left the planet Vulcan around the 4th century AD. We're not given an exact definition of what the Romulans are, a sub-species of Vulcans? A race of Vulcans? Or just a culture of Vulcans? The shows have always been a bit ambiguous about this. @Alan, how would you like to establish the definitions so as you can engage in the discussion then? I've given my opinion, that it would be better to make this article more broad, so as to include sup-species and distinct cultures, etc. And I suggest renaming it (and the other similar articles) to "species and cultures". --HibernianPDM (talk) 01:12, April 6, 2018 (UTC) ::::Cultures, which is currently just a redirect to culture, is sitting right there, ostensibly empty. If you want to write an article on that subject, just do it. If you're going to keep insisting that cultures have to be covered here, admit it's not about the subject, or material, or how Star Trek is littered with mono-cultures, it's about you. If you're waiting for someone else to do it for you, it's still about you. If you need someone to tell you it's OK to do, you're going to have a bad time. Just do it. If someone has a problem with what you've done, you'll be sure to hear about it, but you're not going to avoid that by wasting all this time in committee before hand. You can't argue for a merge with content that doesn't exist, so go make it exist or go do something else to waste your time that doesn't waste ours, but either way, JUST DO IT.- 02:23, April 6, 2018 (UTC) Eh, I already did DO IT. I included all the sub-species/races/cultures I could find in the article. My work was reverted. Hence coming here to resolve the issue, rather than engage in an endless edit war. --HibernianPDM (talk) 02:56, April 6, 2018 (UTC) ::::So it's about you then. The why isn't actually important to me, but if it stops being about you anytime soon, feel free to contribute to cultures. If you continue to beat the horse here though, you will be blocked, because you're not arguing a point anymore. It might surprise you to learn that I know what I'm doing when I remove links to articles that are unlikely to be made anytime soon, so don't revert me again. - 03:07, April 6, 2018 (UTC) I really don't get you. If it's not important to you then why comment at all? And what do you mean I will be blocked? For what? Trying to have a discussion on a talk page? I was not aware that there was any issue of using red links to talk about possible articles on Memory Alpha, I've never encountered that rule on Wikipedia, but if it exists here for some reason then ok. But on Wikipedia at least it is generally considered rude to edit someone else's talk page posts (even to correct things), so I am certainly not used to anyone doing that. If there's a good reason for it here, then fine sorry. I just don't understand what you mean about it "being about me", I've expressed an opinion on how I think this article (and similar articles) should be. Others are free to express their opinion or explain their position, but I think what I've brought up at least deserves some response (though I can't force anyone to care about it). --HibernianPDM (talk) 03:57, April 6, 2018 (UTC) ::::I don't have time to figure out why people on the internet don't understand written English, so I don't bother with that anymore. That being said, as a matter of policy, I have to explain you can talk, and talk, and talk till you appreciate that writing isn't talking, but if you add cultures and/or groups to this list of species again, you will be blocked. It's been explained to you that species and cultures are not the same, they're not even in the same category branch. You don't have to agree, you just have to comply. Also, this is not Wikipedia, so link maintenance in posts is . - 04:30, April 6, 2018 (UTC) :::::@HibernianPDM: I agree with all of what you said. Changing the article to "Alpha and Beta Quadrant species and cultures" is a good idea because it would eliminate the need to have endless discussions about which groups are different enough to be considered separate species. Personally, I think 892-IV natives are humans, while Augments and Terratins are definitely different enough to be classed as separate species. Hibernian, you may want to consider migrating to Memory Beta since they use "races and cultures" lists just as you suggested. On Memory Alpha, a list of species can never be complete because the admins refuse to allow species from novels, comics and video games to be listed, so in my opinion, there's not much point working on it. :::::@Archduk3: I see you're still bullying people and threatening to block someone just for expressing an opinion. Do you know how easy it is to download a VPN and get around your blocks? --NetSpiker (talk) 05:18, April 6, 2018 (UTC) ::::I see you're still trolling. If you're asking for another block, it can be arranged. - 05:37, April 6, 2018 (UTC) ::::::I also agree with this page becoming "Alpha and Beta Quadrant species and cultures". @Archduck, please stop being a bully. --Defiant (talk) 08:18, April 6, 2018 (UTC) ::NetSpiker, this wiki covers on-screen Star Trek. It's not a matter of "the admins refusing to allow" anything. If you want to change the scope of this wiki so it duplicates Memory Beta, or for any other reason, feel free to attempt to gain consensus to do so. This wiki is used as a resource by Star Trek writers of all types(including Discovery writers) so we try to keep it to on-screen content, as novels, games, etc. are often contradictory and were not vetted by a single authority to approve their content. (unlike Star Wars, at least for awhile) ::It's also my experience that users evading their blocks are usually detected and their posts removed. If they have the time to play that game ad infinitum, yes, there's not much else we can do. That's not news. 31dot (talk) 08:33, April 6, 2018 (UTC) ::I also agree that before talking about changing the scope of this page or merging it with another, the other page should actually get content on it so we can see what we are talking about. 31dot (talk) 08:35, April 6, 2018 (UTC) ::::::Good idea. :) --Defiant (talk) 08:44, April 6, 2018 (UTC) ::::You called that idea bullying when I said it, but it's a good one now that 31dot has agreed? I guess that means I should automatically be against it now, since he has blocked me before, and the persecution squad here is mostly salty about how I've had to block them previously. No, no, that would make me Cid if I started arguing against my own argument in the same conversation. Can't let that happen. That would be just too perfect. ::::I'm not going to bother suggesting for a third time that cultures be used, that would be silly, and I already said it, but if people really want this page renamed, there's a guideline for that. Not that anybody reads on the internet anymore. - 09:05, April 6, 2018 (UTC) ::::::For the record, I support the idea of using "cultures" to draft out the added content, I'm impartial to who said that idea (it's been a good idea every time it's been suggested, after all), and what I refer to as bullying is such statements as "If you're asking for another block, it can be arranged." All NetSpiker had said was a simple question; "Do you know how easy it is to download a VPN and get around your blocks?" This was answered far more reasonably by 31dot. If you feel too close to it that you lose your temper like you've demonstrated, perhaps take a break from the discussion for a while; just a friendly suggestion. Anyway, I've said enough. It's clearly consensus that "cultures" be used to draft the info HibernianPDM would like to add. Goodbye. --Defiant (talk) 09:28, April 6, 2018 (UTC) ::::I'm glad you've declared a clear consensus on this that more or less matches the clearly unclear one on November 14, 2017. Clearly we have accomplished a lot, for the record. - 11:30, April 6, 2018 (UTC) Ok, I don't know what previous beefs people here have, and frankly I don't care. I'm here to talk about an element of the source material and the logical presentation of it. Archduk3 has said: "It's been explained to you that species and cultures are not the same, they're not even in the same category branch. You don't have to agree, you just have to comply.", well I have to question this. How was it decided that these should be the firm categories? Are they holy writ? That would seem rather odd since until a few days ago Memory Alpha's "Species" article was called "Species and Cultures". Clearly at some point the two concepts were linked. What I am attempting to point out is what I see as the illogic of this encyclopedia trying to firmly distinguish concepts that the source material (the shows and movies) does not firmly distinguish. I would really like to ask Archduk3, Gvsualan (and anyone else who wants to comment); Are the Romulans a species? And are the Son'a a species? --HibernianPDM (talk) 04:18, April 7, 2018 (UTC) : You're arguing about a relic that was written back before we could even conceive the scope that this project could ever reach. If you'd bother looking past an obsolete concept that clearly wasnt on the forefront of anyone's mind until you pointed us there, you've still failed to draft any sort of relevant evidence to support either side, but especially to use anything but personal opinion to support your defense. The Sona are a group why are you still talking about that? Why are human colonists on other worlds suddenly subgroups, and not just humans? : Do something with the culture/cultures page, define what you are trying to argue that says they are the same, bring something to the table that isnt adding redundant information to an obsolete list that finally got the attention you wanted that didn't turn out in your favor. --Alan (talk) 05:01, April 7, 2018 (UTC) And the Romulans? --HibernianPDM (talk) 05:38, April 7, 2018 (UTC) ::::Are a species. You can tell because it says so right on the page for them. There are citations and everything. - 06:39, April 7, 2018 (UTC) Ok, so let's examine the logic of that. The Son'a are a group of Ba'ku who left their planet and separated themselves from the rest of their species. They look very different from the Ba'ku, they have a different culture and political system. In essence, the Ba'ku and the So'na are separate civilizations. And now the Romulans... are a group of Vulcans who left their planet and separated themselves from the rest of their species. They look a bit different from the Vulcans (though some are identical), they have a different culture and political system. In essence, the Vulcans and the Romulans are separate civilizations. What exactly is it that makes the Romulans a "species", but the Son'a only a "group"? Can you not see the flaw in this argument? --HibernianPDM (talk) 03:09, April 8, 2018 (UTC) : Not so much; the son'a were literally the child ren of the ba'ku. --Alan (talk) 05:07, April 8, 2018 (UTC) :::::The Son'a are only one generation removed from the Ba'ku and their faces only look different due to plastic surgery. The Romulans are many generations removed from the Vulcans, and there are clear biological differences between the two races. --NetSpiker (talk) 06:04, April 8, 2018 (UTC) ::I think the film suggested that the Son'a looked different because they were away from the Baku planet; they gave themselves surgery and did other things to themselves to try to keep them looking as they did(not entirely successfully). 31dot (talk) 08:21, April 8, 2018 (UTC) Yeah, I know all that, but it seems to be an incredibly arbitrary cut off line. At what stage in separation do they become different species? In any case, the crux of the issue is that they are all separate civilizations. --HibernianPDM (talk) 11:02, April 9, 2018 (UTC) : Yeah, you didn't know all that or you wouldn't have kept bringing up that terrible example. So, the real crux of the situation is really the fact that you are a just another Johnny-come-lately troll who clearly has no interest in otherwise contributing to this site, outside of arguing on subjects you refuse to support with valid arguments. I'm still waiting on those definitions. You've had four days to work on it. What's the hold up? --Alan (talk) 12:54, April 9, 2018 (UTC) No, I've always been aware that the Son'a and Ba'ku are the same species, thank you very much (I have seen the film). What I am arguing for is that they are a separate culture or civilization to the Ba'ku, so should be mentioned on the page as a sub-group of the Ba'ku. Hence why I argued that the page should be changed to "species and cultures", so as to include all the sup-speices, sub-groups, races, cultures and civilizations that make up species. Because I believe a strict adherence to just "species" is both not justified within the canon and counter-productive to readers trying to find information. As for definitions, I asked you to present your definitions of what a species or sub-species is and you have said nothing on the issue. And on calling me a "Johnny-come-lately troll", well wow! you know there's something very wrong when Admins start name-calling and breaking civility! --HibernianPDM (talk) 03:31, April 11, 2018 (UTC)